With the new repack and station reassignments and all the channels being below 36, wouldn't it be prudent for manufacturers to redesign antennas?

I know what the marketing answer is. If we can sell more antennas, we would redesign them. But on a more practical side, why not? To me it's a golden opportunity for marketing.

Just like they did when color TV came out. All the sudden the previously designed antennas became "Color TV antennas".
Or, what about the DTV transition? These same antennas now became "Digital TV antennas".

I mean everyone here has to admit that current TV antenna design could now be optimized and eliminate anything that helps with over channel 36.

What's funny to me, is when Winegard design there 7 through 69 series, everything above Channel 51 was eliminated right in the same time frame.

Or, does it really matter? I think it does matter. I've looked at several tests from different authors who like certain antenna in certain Channel bands. For example Tom Ballister felt that they 4228HD was a much better antenna below channel 40 than the other 8 bay antennas. I'm generalizing but that's kind of what I picked up from this review:

With the new repack and station reassignments and all the channels being below 36, wouldn't it be prudent for manufacturers to redesign antennas?

Hey Bobs: I know your questions and thoughts have come up in the forum several times since I've been here. I recall rabbit73 and AdTech both commenting that if antenna manufacturers could make money off a new design etc., it's possible we could see updated inventory. But it's tough in today's market as you know.

However, your point is well taken and according to all the information I've read about "cord cutting" continuing to rise, you would think that the remaining domestic manufactures would be taking notice. I know it's a somewhat complicated issue with numerous thoughts abounding. I guess we'll see.

Right now I've seen various "knock off" antenna designs across the web, mostly scaled down versions of outdoor antennas or "new" indoor ones claiming longer distance reception, etc.

I have read that when 3.0 OTA kicks in over the next several years, even indoor reception will improve with current antennas and other interesting options. However, the FCC is giving TV manufactures 5-7 years to incorporate 3.0 into their tuners. LG maybe the first to incorporate. So, in order to receive "all the goodies," consumers will have to plug their antennas into a small box and connect to their TV's, just like we did when switching over from Analog to Digital back in 08 or 09. Whoopie! But at least that's something to look forward to, I suppose.

Anyway, maybe others (insiders) will chime in on what the "skinny" actually is going on.

"NEXT GEN" television is being tested here in Arizona.
KFPH Flagstaff and it's Phoenix translator are hosting
the testing. I've had the opportunity to see it and while
their are some advantages, there are also disadvantages.
As for antenna redesign, that is unlikely because of space
limitations on store shelves.

So, what would a new UHF antenna optimized for channels 14 through 37 look like?
For example would a 91XG be a little shorter? But it have different spacing on the elements?
Do the whiskers get longer or shorter on a 4228HD? Does the bay get smaller?

"NEXT GEN" television is being tested here in Arizona.
KFPH Flagstaff and it's Phoenix translator are hosting
the testing. I've had the opportunity to see it and while
their are some advantages, there are also disadvantages.
As for antenna redesign, that is unlikely because of space
limitations on store shelves.

I think that as the UHF Spectrum gets smaller the antennas will get smaller also, which is good news for the manufacturers. Especially Antennas Direct who wants their antennas to fit on a store shelf. I'm amazed at the small size of the 91XG box.

Personally I think the marketing people ruin everything. They decide what everybody should have. I've dealt directly with some Automotive tool companies. They started taking features out of the tools because they said nobody was using them.. Yes, they decided that the tools had to be dumber than the mechanics using them. In a way they were right but the really well trained mechanics started using different tools. I can't elaborate on it any more than that. I just notice the marketing departments tend to run the show. The engineers know better but the marketing people decide what hits the streets. It's very sad.

Thanks for your comments. I wanted to address all your thoughts. You are a welcome addition to this forum.

Quote:

Hey Bobs: I know your questions and thoughts have come up in the forum several times since I've been here. I recall rabbit73 and AdTech both commenting that if antenna manufacturers could make money off a new design etc., it's possible we could see updated inventory. But it's tough in today's market as you know.

that's the problem with today's companies. They have to make maximum dollar on everything they do. They waste money and other areas but nobody notices that. I digress. My point is simply that this is an opportunity just like when color TV came out and then digital.

Quote:

However, your point is well taken and according to all the information I've read about "cord cutting" continuing to rise, you would think that the remaining domestic manufactures would be taking notice. I know it's a somewhat complicated issue with numerous thoughts abounding. I guess we'll see.

Well, the manufacturers have taken notice and just feel like they let this one go because it might cut into the big bonuses the company presidents get. They could present it to their investors as "see, we dodged a bullet we didn't have to redesign our antennas they still work"

Quote:

Right now I've seen various "knock off" antenna designs across the web, mostly scaled down versions of outdoor antennas or "new" indoor ones claiming longer distance reception, etc.

yes, there's lots of knock off antennas out there some of them very well made by the way. but some of the ones are cheap pieces of that claim 200 miles of reception and come with their very own Rotator that fails in the first month

Quote:

I have read that when 3.0 OTA kicks in over the next several years, even indoor reception will improve with current antennas and other interesting options. However, the FCC is giving TV manufactures 5-7 years to incorporate 3.0 into their tuners. LG maybe the first to incorporate. So, in order to receive "all the goodies," consumers will have to plug their antennas into a small box and connect to their TV's, just like we did when switching over from Analog to Digital back in 08 or 09. Whoopie! But at least that's something to look forward to, I suppose.

I have to admit I haven't read much on that 3.0. So most consumers will need to buy another box?

Quote:

Anyway, maybe others (insiders) will chime in on what the "skinny" actually is going on.

Take care, Bobs.....

Yes and thank you for your retroactive introspection!

I hope others do chime in now that the troll has been banished. We've all agreed to move on and one of the ways is to reactivate this forum.

The title of this post isn't entirely true actually rabbit 73 gave me the links in another forum. I actually wrote the company an email and got back some good responses. Unfortunately they are in England. I picture them as a small to mid-size company that still cares about their consumers.

When I asked them about the repack in the US they said they had a antenna cut exactly for our new channel range in UHF of course. Since posting pictures hear it takes a lot of manipulation I'm just going to add the link for now. Justin recommended their A group antennas.

The website is updated regularly on the latest news regarding NextGen or 3.0 OTATV. Also, soundandvision.com usually posts important updates.

Quote:

Yes and thank you for your retroactive introspection!

I hope others do chime in now that the troll has been banished. We've all agreed to move on and one of the ways is to reactivate this forum.

Thanks for your above and other kind replies, Bob. I'm certainly no TV Tech, but I've learned much from this forum and owe (almost) everyone here a handshake and applause! Also, good to see rabbit73s' post!!

As always, thanks Rabbit. I can't upload phone pictures easily. My phone photo program doesn't allow for resizing and most of the time when I upload a photo from my phone it gets rejected for being too large. I normally upload photos from my desktop computer or I can manipulate them first.

JoeAZ: So far I've only read about the advantages of NetGen or 3.0 OTATV, but I would be very interested in understanding the disadvantages as well, to get a more objective sense on the matter.

Thanks and all the best!

A small group of engineers came to my home in Prescott to see
in actuality, how the Nextgen signals travel. They brought a
converter box and connected to my LG 55" OLED tv. We tried
multiple antennas. Starting with my CM-3018, then my Winegard
7694P, then two custom antennas. They had high tech signal
meters to see how the Nextgen signal arrived versus the current
signal. With a 2 edge KFPH signal at my home, there was
virtually no difference between current and Nextgen. The largest
difference was between the custom antennas and my purchased
antennas. We had my internet connected, which is required
to benefit from Nextgen tv. The interface between the broadcast
signal and internet was quite choppy. It might have been my
internet but the engineers told me that it is a common Nextgen
issue. The "local" content varied between Phoenix, Flagstaff and
Prescott. It seemed like it couldn't make it's mind up over my
location. The picture quality was superb, aside from the choppiness.
The audio was not discernibly better than current broadcasts.

The interface between the broadcast
signal and internet was quite choppy.

Yes, thanks JoeAZ for an on the site lab report.

Like I said, I've only kept up with 3.0 through online articles, mostly positive with the promise of better reception. But it appears from your in home testing, there are numerous bugs to be worked out. I hope you can update if you have another lab in your home.

Quote:

I don't like the idea of "Big Brother" in my TV. I would only want to watch ATSC 3.0 OTA without an internet connection.

If I understand correctly, the internet connection isn't mandatory but
it gives you "local" content versus national or regional content. There
were constant weather updates on the bottom of the screen which could
be enlarged for better viewing. There were local car ads, local news,
restaurants, etc, etc any of which could be enlarged for more information....
I also understand that some of the streamed content is based on past
viewing and purchasing habits. So yes, big brother IS watching!